Put more bluntly, it shouldn’t be about “The Work”, it should be about “The Craft”. Work implies that, well, it’s work. Craft is about dedicating yourself to the craft, about perfecting it and feeling an immense amount of pride in the output. Not following a recipe.

Like this:

one of Arthur C. Clarke’s lesser known three laws: “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.”

How does the [collective decision by The Big Three to go play with each other in Miami look when analysed by a game theorist?

Consider a simple game with three players (no pun intended!) who all have to choose where to play basketball next year. They can each choose to stay in their own city or move to the city of another player. (So for the moment we leave out the option of them all going to New York or Chicago for simplicity’s sake, but I think the logic still holds fine if we expand the number of destinations.) The players get utility from the following four factors:

the money they are paid in salary

the chance to win a championship

the quality of life in the city in which you choose to live

not being perceived as a villain

[SNIP]

The optimal strategy for Bosh and Wade, I think, is both should credibly commit to going to Miami before Lebron makes his decision. This puts the maximum possible pressure on Lebron to come to Miami. Now all of the sudden, LeBron is making his decision with complete information: if he sufficiently values the chance to win a championship, he has to come to Miami also. Whereas if LeBron makes his decision first, he might choose to go to Cleveland on the expectation that there is at least some non-trivial chance that Wade and Bosh will join him there.

So this leads to the interesting question: by allowing Bosh and Wade to make their decisions first, did LeBron possibly get himself into a situation where he ended up with a sub-optimal outcome? If so, it would certainly put that ESPN special in a whole new light – not just obnoxious, but possibly even counter-productive. By committing himself to a specific timetable – and remember, the demands of the ESPN show called for absolute secrecy regarding his decision – he gave Wade and Bosh a chance to both (1) move first and (2) have a little time to think through the strategic value of moving first. So in the end, the need for the King to play to the public may have led to the King himself getting played – surely not the first time in history this has happened!

In something as emotional as sports, it is easy to label someone a “cheat” for breaking the rules, what if, however, you look at decisions with a cost/benefit analysis in mind? You get “rational rule breaking”:

It seems to me “cheating,” in its colloquial understanding, involves not just breaking the rules but attempting to prevent others from discovering you’ve done so. What happened in that game [World Cup quarter final involving Uruguay and Ghana] was what I would call “rational rule breaking.” There was no intent to deceive; the Uruguayan player knew the only chance he had to save the game was to break the rules, and accept the penalty, and hope the Ghanaians missed the penalty kick. True cheaters don’t wish to break the rules and accept the penalty, they just wish to break the rules and avoid the penalty.

[SNIP]

Rational rule breaking, by contrast, is done with a clear understanding of the costs and benefits and not just a willingness to be caught, but an actual positive desire to get caught because the penalty is worth preventing the outcome that will come from following the rules.

[SNIP]

Uruguay should be treating Luis Suarez as a national hero not a cheater, and we economists should thank him for a wonderful classroom example about cost/benefit analysis.

An alternate view from another economist is also available for those who still feel the pain of the Black Stars.

Why did I post these? It’s important to look at events with a critical, yet alternate point of view in order to gain insight into the human condition which, as marketers, can inform our future decision making.

Like this:

In case you were wondering about the business model for Somali pirates…here it is:

A basic piracy operation requires a minimum eight to twelve militia prepared to stay at sea for extended periods of time, in the hopes of hijacking a passing vessel. Each team requires a minimum of two attack skiffs, weapons, equipment, provisions, fuel and preferably a supply boat. The costs of the operation are usually borne by investors, some of whom may also be pirates.

To be eligible for employment as a pirate, a volunteer should already possess a firearm for use in the operation. For this ‘contribution’, he receives a ‘class A’ share of any profit. Pirates who provide a skiff or a heavier firearm, like an RPG or a general purpose machine gun, may be entitled to an additional A-share. The first pirate to board a vessel may also be entitled to an extra A-share.

At least 12 other volunteers are recruited as militiamen to provide protection on land of a ship is hijacked, In addition, each member of the pirate team may bring a partner or relative to be part of this land-based force. Militiamen must possess their own weapon, and receive a ‘class B’ share — usually a fixed amount equivalent to approximately US$15,000.

If a ship is successfully hijacked and brought to anchor, the pirates and the militiamen require food, drink, qaad, fresh clothes, cell phones, air time, etc. The captured crew must also be cared for. In most cases, these services are provided by one or more suppliers, who advance the costs in anticipation of reimbursement, with a significant margin of profit, when ransom is eventually paid.

When ransom is received, fixed costs are the first to be paid out. These are typically:

Like this:

Watching the Olympics cross country skiing today it was interesting to see people coming into the final stretch starting to really crank it out. Of course, all the real work would have been done already so unless you’re in or close to the lead all the blustering at the end is just that, blustering.

It’s easy to go all out when there are thousands cheering you on. It’s much harder to go all out when no one’s looking. When it’s just you and the clock.

As Miles Nadal (@milesnadal), CEO of Veritas’s majority shareholder tweeted:

Diisclaimer: I’m not trying to disparage any Olympians. Just being there is an acheivement I will never be able replicate. This is an observation that applies to the rec league soccer player, middle aged gym rat or high school cross country runner.

The day’s top posts

Top Five Outbound Clicks

None

My Employer

Everything posted on this blog is my personal opinion and does not necessarily represent the views of my employer or its clients. DDB is a global agency so any mention of any organisation could be a conflict of interests but not one that I can disclose.